The exercise of representative public office: parliamentary legislative initiative versus government budget veto Commentary on Constitutional Court Judgment 53/2021, of March 15. Concerning the appeal for legal protection num. 6546-2018. (BOE num. 97, of April 23, 2021)

Abstract

The Constitutional Court, by an individual appeal for protection, upholding the claim of the appellant, by means of judgment 53/2021, of March 15, annuls an agreement of the Bureau of the Regional Assembly of Murcia -and the subsequent one, dictated in the request for reconsideration- that rejected for processing a non-governmental bill, since it is understood that said parliamentary agreements violated the appellant's right to exercise public parliamentary office with the requirements established by law (art. 23.2 CE), in connection with the right of citizens to participate in public affairs through their representatives (art. 23.1 CE), insofar as they lack formal and material motivation, beyond expressing agreement with the budgetary veto formulated by the Governing Council of the Region of Murcia.

The appeal for amparo serves the High Court to expose, once again - and there have been several in recent times - its doctrine about the parliamentary ius in officum, as well as to remind the not so frequent of the powers of the Bureau as a parliamentary governing body regarding to the governmental budgetary veto.